Obama Addresses Health Reform as a Cost Issue

During the campaign, Barack Obama’s health-reform agenda focused mainly on giving Americans access to care. In his first formal address to Congress last night, President Obama brought up health care again — but he framed it largely as an issue central to the economic health of the nation.

He led into the health-care section of his speech with the line, “[W]e must also address the crushing cost of health care.”

Then, after rattling off some numbers about rising health expenses and their impact on individual Americans, he said health-care costs are “one of the major reasons why small businesses close their doors and corporations ship jobs overseas” and “one of the largest and fastest-growing parts of our budget.”

“Given these facts,” he added, “we can no longer afford to put health care reform on hold.”

The speech (here’s a transcript) was a prelude for Obama’s first budget, which will be released later this week. Early reports say there will be a substantial chunk of money in the budget for expanding access to health care.

There does seem to be a pretty strong political will for greater access; delivering the Republican response to Obama’s speech, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal said: “Republicans believe in a simple principle: No American should have to worry about losing their health coverage.”

But, especially in the short term, the costs to the government of expanding access are likely to exceed any savings that come from finding ways to make care more efficient. And, if figuring out how best to expand access will be tough, figuring out how to lower costs — perhaps including reducing reimbursements to highly paid specialists, demanding lower prices on some expensive drugs and restricting the use of unproven treatments — will be even harder.

Comments (5 of 54)

American doesn't need a health care system to provide for everyone. We have a high life expectancy rate and if there were millions of people dying of from not having heath care then it would be reasonable. In these harsh economic times we need to offer more relief for taxpayers and not add more burden. My grandmother has medicare and she loves it. I dont want it to be taken away from her. As an aspiring doctor I dont want to have to deal with these health care tax burdens that will be placed on a physician. This is very unnecessary.

10:12 pm June 12, 2009

fireboss wrote :

I agree that there needs to be changes in our health care system, but the Federal Government needs to stay as far away from it as possible The Post Office, Medicare, Social Security are proof that the Government is totaly inept at running programs. I do not think they could manage a House of Prostitution and bar without destroying any way of making a profit.

4:47 am April 17, 2009

doonousia wrote :

nice, really nice!

4:19 pm March 6, 2009

BVS wrote :

The cost of health care is what it is and rising because of the outrageous law suits, some of which aren't warranted, and the attorneys know they can settle for something due to the cost of dragging out a case even if they don't have a case. This drives the cost of malpractice insurance through the roof, so much so, that some physicians such as surgeons, ob/gyn, anesthesiologist etc...leave the field because the cost of doing business becomes too much. This is not to mention that insurance company including medicare consistently try to find ways to deny medical claims and when they do pay, especially medicare, they pay less than the bill requires. This proposal will lead many physician to leave the field and we are already short on physicians and/or it will cause sub-standard medical care. Why do you guys think every time a Canadian needs serious medical attention they are here paying out of their pockets? Food for thought, it takes up to 4 to 6 months for a Canadian to get a biopsy done for Cancer in Canada. It takes a couple of days to get scheduled and procedure done in the U.S. So if you suspect you have cancer which system would you opt for? If you say Canada, and you think you may have cancer, you could be dead in 6 months.

9:41 pm March 4, 2009

mary j wrote :

I'm a former surgical technologist, in the OR the surgeo, the circulating nurse, the anesthesiologist and the surgical technologit is needed.nothing more. however some hospital rather pay two three nurses more money than gt surgical technologist whoare well trainedan less pay todo the job